User talk:GRuban/Archive 10

New Year, new talk page
After archiving; almost looks lonely... --GRuban (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Neelofa image removal
I removed her photo because in that photo she is not wearing hijab. We have to respect her since she's currently wearing a niqab. Thanks. ~ Lara Hatsumi (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2021 (MYT)
 * Thanks for writing back. See, we don't only show what people look like now, we also show them at other periods in their lives, especially pictures portraying what made them notable - why we have an article about them. For example, we still have images of Caitlyn Jenner as male, and Arnold Schwarzenneger in bikini briefs, even though they don't look like that now. As Neelofa became famous while not wearing niqab or hijab, our articles would not be complete without images of her doing that. --GRuban (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

another pic
Thank you so much for another great pic, added here! You'll find the new year's wishes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20
Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today (thank you for the great image of today, - that would have been good to show!), and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. - Jerome Kohl went live! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, but what is Wikipedia 20? --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia 20 years, sorry for sloppy abbr ;) - ... today proud of a pic I took --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and today of Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice - if only we could have a pic of Jerome Kohl --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... Libuše Domanínská, I see many great pics of her on the internet, - anything free for us to use? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I could find, unfortunately. The Czech Republic has a standard "life + 70 years" copyright, so not much will go into public domain by default. If she had an album published in the US, we could hope for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed, but I can't find one of those. Or an archive that releases the image rights on purpose. Sorry. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alarums & Excursions
I got a notice that you sent me an email, but something has happened to it, I have not received it, so I will reach out to you directly. I understand you are seeking copies of Alarums & Excursions? That is a monthly APA that has been published for 45 years -- over 500 issues, each of them 60-150 pages. Indexing of content in very limited. I MIGHT have the issue you are interrested in, or one of mine might have an article on the subject you are interested in. Do you know the issue #, or the approximate date, or the subject? Guinness323 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alarums & Excursions (Issue 324 - Aug 2002), looking for a review of GURPS Steampunk. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I do not have that issue.You can order an electronic copy of it directly from the publisher (Lee Gold) for $2. See https://conchord.org/xeno/aande.html for details.

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Middleman (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natalie Morales.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

February flowers
happy Valentine's! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer a front view to the profile? Or even straightened a bit?--GRuban (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * yes for my project list, no for his lead (at least today): less green, and there's the match to the Main page ;) - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for Coppa image & request
Hi GRuban -- Thanks for adding the image to Coppa -- you don't happen to know which of the others is Karen Hellekson? I have another DYK for her running in a few days. I'm notoriously faceblind and am not sure... there's a photo of her at her website here: Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking into that very issue! I uploaded one for Kristina Busse, she was easier. I'm fairly sure I've decided which one Karen Hellekson is - there is a slight chance of an embarrassing mistake, but, well, that's what we live for, right? --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see she has a prominent Contact page on her web site. Have you tried writing her, and asking her to release an image, so we could use it? Since she's a fan fiction specialist, I'm guessing she is likely pretty knowledgeable about and active on the Internet. I generally write "Could you put a picture of yourself that you own the rights to (either one you took yourself, a selfie, or one that the photographer has explicitly given you the rights to), on your website, with some text like 'released under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/'? That will let anyone reuse and modify it as described in that link, like the rest of the Wikipedia." She can also fill out a form at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS and send the image via email as described there, but that often requires multiple emails back and forth, so just putting one with a release on her official website is generally much easier. I mean, if she doesn't, we can absolutely use one from the Berkeley series, but it won't be as good. I can start with that - seeing what the alternative is sometimes incentivizes article subjects a bit. --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your choice! --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually never contacted anyone off Wikipedia in all my coming up 15 years here, surprisingly enough. I always chicken out at the last minute. It's slightly harder with Coppa/Hellekson as I do know several people who know them but I'm not at all an expert in fan studies or literature, so I worry I've written something really daft. (I've actually met Busse, though I wouldn't recognise her from that photo at all.) Sometimes as you say, a somewhat unflattering image might galvanise a request to put up a better one. I could try to screw myself up to writing to them and saying that I wrote an article about you and someone else has added a slightly unflattering image, could they help out with a better one, if you didn't mind being insulted...
 * ETA: Ah, I wondered if it might be her, but was havering over the dark-haired women on the left (hair colour changes are one of the things that really throw me off). If it is the right person, I'd suggest the headshot as a bit more flattering. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Her home page photo has green hair, so, yes, I can see that might be confusing. But the hair cut is mostly consistent (you think she will want to speak with our manager?), and here's also this clearly labeled image of her on Flickr a year later https://www.flickr.com/photos/calnewmedia/49765959073 - less useful for our purposes as it is a charming "up the nose" angle, but clearly bridges the gap between our image and the home page image.
 * I see she specializes in Cordwainer Smith! That's great, he (along with HP Lovecraft), was one of my favorites in the days when I worried less about social justice. But we don't even have an article on "Golden the Ship Was—Oh! Oh! Oh!" so maybe our readers will be spared. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd never actually heard of Cordwainer Smith -- one of the delights of writing articles is the (bizarre) side shoots one encounters along the way. I still read Lovecraft; if one abandoned all the non-PC fiction I'm not sure how much there would be left -- Tolkien is trivial to condemn, and even Le Guin -- who introduced child-me to the notion of protagonists who weren't white -- comes in for stick these days. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, there's a good one here: (scroll down a bit) with a similar necklace. Phew. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help?
I cannot remember if you can do this or not, but I am working on a project for women's nationality. I found a whole series of PDFs that unfortunately were saved as photographs and cannot thus be translated without the tedious process of typing them all out. Is there a way to convert say this to text? If that is possible, I have others as well. Hope all is well with you and that you are weathering the pandemic safely. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a number of free online tools which will do OCR on a scanned PDF. They'll get some of the letters wrong, but are a lot better than nothing. https://www.pdf2go.com/pdf-to-text mostly worked on that one for me, I'll email you what it made of it. --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are a genius! Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot say enough how having this tool has revolutionized my work. Right now I am working with Latin alphabets, and if it has so dramatically stopped me from wasting time typing out long segments, I cannot even imagine how helpful it will be when I get to a doc with Cyrillic or Arabic text in which I have had to copy and paste character by character to try to read. Thank you, thank you, thank you. SusunW (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

--GRuban (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anna Bader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cliff diving.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Robin DiAngelo photo
They pulled it from [ https://www.purdue.edu/diversity-inclusion/racial-justice-series/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DiAngelo-Head-shot-1-scaled.jpg here], and already had a copyright warning on his talk page. I think I have it speedied on commons already, although I don't know how any of their processes work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; however, there is a non-zero chance this is a person who knows Robin DiAngelo personally, and wants to improve her photo, in which case she may be able to get the photographer to release the image. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

template
Hi! The  template is nice for linking to Google search results:   yields. Sr ey Sr os talk 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks so much for uploading that image of the front page of the Port of Spain Gazette. Big improvement to the article (and something I should have thought of!) Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aw, gee, shucks --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers
Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Search link tip
Remember, "Bah, that didn't link properly"? In this edit at Talk:Irreversible Damage, you tried to copy a browser-bar url for a google search result page into a Talk page discussion, and the link didn't work. The problem is how Wikimedia handles certain special characters, like double quotes, in an external link. The next time, look for double quotes in the url, and change them all to  before you paste it into the TP. So, for example: instead of, you want. When you place that into a link, you get this. (It's a little more complicated if you use other special characters; see URL query and Percent-encoding if you want a fuller explanation.) HTH, Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cthulhu for President
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bad Medicine Dr Drugs.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bad Medicine Dr Drugs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

GURPS Steampunk
Congrats on everything so far. I didn't know whether you'd had second thoughts about adding more covers, or... Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of forms to fill out. Here's one more... --GRuban (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's probably a ways down the line, but I'm eventually going to come up with a page of deleted and redirected RPG articles to see which ones can be restored or rebuilt. I'm also considering coming up with a list of game articles that I know have several reviews and just need expanding, in other words having potential like GURPS Steampunk; a lot of them have two or three known reviews, but I would want to focus on those with four or more, and/or 2-3 with an award. It may be some time before I would put a thing like that together, but if you are interested in doing more RPG articles I could put together a smaller list of suggestions. :) Or, if there were specific games and/or genres I could focus on those even if there are only 2-3 reviews. There are also bio articles if you are interested. Lots of stuff, really. :) BOZ (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, BOZ, you are the undisputed master of the games, so to speak. I found this out when I was asking a game-related personage to release a image so we could use it for a Wikipedia article, and she asked, "Are you BOZ?" (Never released the image, though.) Maybe later, but as I told Newimpartial, I may be RPGd out for a while.--GRuban (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah, sounds good. :) I actually have photographed game designers and artists at GenCon (with permission) for Wikipedia purposes, so maybe I have a reputation now! LOL Well, like I said, these projects are somewhat down the road, so no worries! I have a lot of other stuff I want to do in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caroline Jurie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sri Lankan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for GURPS Steampunk
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for GURPS Steampunk
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Socialist Movement (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New America.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Aww, gee, thanks. --GRuban (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Matthias Hoene
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Miss and Mister Supranational


A tag has been placed on Miss and Mister Supranational requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Supranational_(2nd_nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Miss and Mister Supranational for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss and Mister Supranational is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Miss and Mister Supranational until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:DYK user topicon 3
Template:DYK user topicon 3 has been nominated for merging with Template:DYK user topicon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Image
Thank you so much for recent images! The pic of Hildegard Behrens is stunning, - any idea in what queenly role? (... or Tosca?) Can't believe how poor that article is otherwise, - thank you also for making me aware of that. Brünnhilde at the Met, I mean, there should be more. - I once travelled to see her as Isolde, but she sang only the premiere. Janis Martin was also fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be Tosca, but I'm not sure enough to say so. The image is from the Library of Congress which recently (relatively - most digitized 2020) released a lot of great images by Bernard Gotfryd, a Newsweek photographer who seems to have specialized in New York City celebrities and events of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. I'm going through them and adding images to articles that don't have them, and putting them in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD-Gotfryd (which also has a few words and links to an article about the man himself). It's a treasure trove, I've illustrated maybe 40 articles from it, and am less than half done. You can see the Hildegard Behrens images here: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=hildegard+behrens&st=gallery most with Placido Domingo. One is labeled Tosca, but that one has Domingo and Behrens in different costumes, so ...? I don't know Tosca, is there a costume change from red dress to white or the reverse somewhere in it? Or are those two different operas? In any case, if you know something about her career, did she do multiple different operas with Placido Domingo in the 1980s, probably in New York City, or just the one? --GRuban (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having looked, I'm 99% sure it's Tosca, in which the title heroine is a singer. In the first act, she's there privately (white), while in the other acts, she's dressed for a gala concert (red). We could make sure the missing 1% by checking her roles with the Met. Callas wore a similar costume in the role, which made me guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 100%, see here - Tosca premiered in 1985, the only other "royal"-looking person being Elektra in Idomeneo, but with Pavarotti, and not matching other pics (where she is tending to her lover who has been tortured). You can safely call them all Tosca, his role is Cavaradossi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just going to confirm: found a YouTube video of her in that dress, labeled Tosca. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJyQFuUldDU Also your list means it's 1985: she also did Tosca in 1987, but without Domingo.--GRuban (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Help!!!
Miss Grand was about to be deleted after Miss Supranational. Please help us to keep the page!--180.253.165.238 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Articles for deletion/Miss Grand. IP had copied the article's AfD tag here--I took the liberty of removing and replacing with the link. --Finngall talk  15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Fursona of an article subject
I am talking about myself. I own the copyrights to my fursona. The terms of service of Fiverr is clear that I am the copyright holder. There has not yet been any coverage of them in the media so I am not sure it would be appropriate now, but it may be someday, and I want it to be in some vague far off world. How can I make this a reality? Can I just upload images of these fursonas, which are my property according to copyright law and the aforementioned TOS, of course citing the author, and have these included in Wikipedia? I was not out about my interest in the furry fandom until recently, and I expect that if somebody adds this to the article with a citation I am going to want there to be a picture of it. I would very much like your input, and feel free if you think this is interesting enough to invite other editors to contribute. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Er - if you upload an image here, you need to release it under a free license, meaning people can basically reuse it with only minor restrictions. That's kind of the opposite of asserting your copyright. In general, Wikipedia is not the place to assert something. To do that, I imagine you could put the pics on a website you own, or maybe register them with the US or other nation Copyright Office or something like that, but that's not really my expertise. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or did I misunderstand? What exactly do you want to make a reality? To document that you have a fursona? To document that you have a copyright on your fursona? To add furry pics to the article about you? --GRuban (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm kind of interested in general, not just for myself. I'm using myself as an example but I had a fascinating discussion with Elle Reeve about basically how people identify online and how on Wikipedia even e.g. someone who never posts images of themselves and always identifies with an icon would still have their image up if a free (libre) one existed. Obviously I'd put the image under a free license, I know how this works. But remember, the first step to licensing is even owning the copyright. I can stick an Apache license on a binary of Adobe Photoshop all I want and distribute them together e.g. on a torrent website &mdash; that's not legally valid though. So in order for any license to be valid, the licensor has to assert that they actually own the rights they're licensing, that's what I'm discussing here. I've never seen this happen &mdash; I've never seen someone upload a work to Commons or Wikipedia that they did not create, but which they own the rights to under either something like Fiverr's TOS or some other arrangement like a work arrangement (US copyright law is generally that if Alice does freelance work for Bob, Bob owns all copyrights and related rights to Alice's work). Do we even have templates for this? Basically I'm trying to philosophize with you a little, but also loop it back to the serious fact that it might actually become something noted in the press and then it would be a question for my particular article whether fursona image (appropriately licensed) belongs there. Basically I had that really interesting conversation with Reeve and I'm just trying to get you involved in it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. From the license release point of view, there isn't any distinction between the claims "I own this due to having created it" or "I own this due to hiring the creator" or "I own this due to inheriting the rights from my uncle Bob, may he rest in peace". In each case, we Wikipedians (or Commons Wikimedians) need to make an educated evaluation of how likely the claim is to be true. That comes up all the time in Commons License review for images, which I do fairly often. Here is a "quiz" I gave to a prospective License reviewer just a few days ago on basically this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=571575133 (short, take the quiz yourself if you like). 4 files, all claimed to be released, and we look at them and say - yes, we believe this one, but this one we really don't. Here is a discussion I recently had on a basically this subject about images for an article that is linked on the front page today (long and painful, you may want to avoid if you don't have masochistic tendencies): User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_246 --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, on that topic, Elle Reeve does not have the best picture. Let's see if I can improve it. --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictures are a matter of opinion of course, but I hope this is better? --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the month delay. I wanted to get the photo I took off my Huawei phone, but it is, uh, breaking more each day. I wanted the original photo, to get its EXIF data (I think it's important for proof reasons, that I actually met her and took her photo, not that people wouldn't believe me given I am who I am, but still,) and it took me a while to find the time (and energy) to run an FTP server on it.
 * Anyway:
 * Elle Reeve (cropped).jpg
 * Now, this is interesting, isn't it, and kind of is an example of the problem we were talking about. Obviously, we did not talk this much about Wikipedia photos without me taking one. But here's a dilemma: yours was taken in better lighting conditions, and is obviously much more detailed. Mine, however, is a natural pose, newer, and the subject themselves liked the photo. I changed it to mine, but am happy to discuss it more. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, more than fine, it's good. Thanks for the photo. Making the subject happy can't be our primary goal, but it's a fine secondary one! I'm not sure what the problem is, though - which photo to use? If the article were longer, there might be an argument for both the artistically pretty photo, yours, and one that shows her face a bit better, but even then the difference would be minor. Or proving that you own the copyright? I think we can just believe you: it seems likely as you're famous enough that her interviewing you seems reasonable, so it's perfectly believable that you interacted with her in a situation to take the photo, and you're now a rather experienced and trusted contributor, which doesn't hurt, so unless someone shows up and presents some pretty good evidence otherwise, it should be perfectly fine. Oh, one thing - instead of just calling it "Elle Reeve (cropped).jpg" I'd call it "Elle Reeve in car" or something. A tad more descriptive is useful now that we have multiple photos to distinguish between. But again, not a big deal, great photo, thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, this is interesting, isn't it, and kind of is an example of the problem we were talking about. Obviously, we did not talk this much about Wikipedia photos without me taking one. But here's a dilemma: yours was taken in better lighting conditions, and is obviously much more detailed. Mine, however, is a natural pose, newer, and the subject themselves liked the photo. I changed it to mine, but am happy to discuss it more. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, more than fine, it's good. Thanks for the photo. Making the subject happy can't be our primary goal, but it's a fine secondary one! I'm not sure what the problem is, though - which photo to use? If the article were longer, there might be an argument for both the artistically pretty photo, yours, and one that shows her face a bit better, but even then the difference would be minor. Or proving that you own the copyright? I think we can just believe you: it seems likely as you're famous enough that her interviewing you seems reasonable, so it's perfectly believable that you interacted with her in a situation to take the photo, and you're now a rather experienced and trusted contributor, which doesn't hurt, so unless someone shows up and presents some pretty good evidence otherwise, it should be perfectly fine. Oh, one thing - instead of just calling it "Elle Reeve (cropped).jpg" I'd call it "Elle Reeve in car" or something. A tad more descriptive is useful now that we have multiple photos to distinguish between. But again, not a big deal, great photo, thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, more than fine, it's good. Thanks for the photo. Making the subject happy can't be our primary goal, but it's a fine secondary one! I'm not sure what the problem is, though - which photo to use? If the article were longer, there might be an argument for both the artistically pretty photo, yours, and one that shows her face a bit better, but even then the difference would be minor. Or proving that you own the copyright? I think we can just believe you: it seems likely as you're famous enough that her interviewing you seems reasonable, so it's perfectly believable that you interacted with her in a situation to take the photo, and you're now a rather experienced and trusted contributor, which doesn't hurt, so unless someone shows up and presents some pretty good evidence otherwise, it should be perfectly fine. Oh, one thing - instead of just calling it "Elle Reeve (cropped).jpg" I'd call it "Elle Reeve in car" or something. A tad more descriptive is useful now that we have multiple photos to distinguish between. But again, not a big deal, great photo, thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Laura McKinlay Robinson
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

July corner
June continued ... last year's flowers match the image on the user page nicely, see? - DYK that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope? - The DYK set in honour of Yoninah appeared yesterday, including Psalm 85, with the kiss of justice and peace - we wrote that together.

Fourth of July: Brian's birthday, remembered in gratitude for his unfailing inspiration and support - remember the Chapel - the missed - the music? - Can I interest you in a user's first FAC, Carillon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what that was about! I was wondering why everything was Israel-related. I hope she would have liked it. She was wonderful. --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Would you find a pic of Franz Harnoncourt, - there are at least two, I mean the conductor's brother, not his son. The brother is pictured in the YouTube from the opening of the chapel (bottom of that article), close to the end (3:44), fourth from left in the one row of "audience" (his wife third from left). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no luck in the usual places. --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for checking! - More music: 2 songs, the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * + more music, cello sonatas and a new song about a feast - a dear person remembered today when she would have been 122, - related to Karl Harnoncourt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

DYK (ping to notify)
Hey! Sorry if this disturbs you, but just wanna get Template:Did you know nominations/Living in the Age of Airplanes back on your radar in case you missed the ping. It's been several days since it's unreviewed.  Gerald WL  06:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

August corner
Thank you for more image work! Could you perhaps crop the Peter Fleischmann image to just the face? ... confirm that Erich Witte is pictured on the Berlin pics, and add that to the documentation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * So, I see that Peter Fleischmann image actually has a couple of crops already, so you could just use one of those. However, no offense, but it's a rather blurry image, and he's looking to the side. I looked around, and there's a YouTube video of him speaking at the Deutsches Filminstitut that has a Creative Commons Attribution license, and that video isn't ideal either, but isn't quite as blurry, in my humble opinion. So I cropped a few images from there, put them all in a category, and here in a gallery for easy reference. Pick which you'd like - the dramatic gesture, the smiling with clasped hands, or just quiet sitting? Will look at the Witte one as well. --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's just excellent! And in time, during my last additions to his article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

For the Erich Witte image, though ... I'm not sure what I can do for you there, I'm afraid. I can't confirm this is Witte in the image, I'm not an expert on Witte, I had never heard of him before your message, and from looking at an image search for him, he didn't seem to be a particularly visually distinctive person, and did use some dramatic amounts of stage makeup for his roles (I wouldn't have guessed at first glance that these three images were all him, they're wildly different appearances, from long blond hair, to short curly black hair with moustache, it took looking carefully to believe it). So he could well be in that image, I won't argue against it, but I wouldn't be able to be the one to vouch for it. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The German Wikipedia claims that he was Jaquino in the highly notable performance, the first opera in Berlin after World War II. We know about the girl at his side, Irma Beilke. I can't find a RS for the fact that he participated, but also no suggestion of a different tenor. The roles in Fidelio are almost stereotype (The innocent girl in love, her father, her simple admirer (Jaquino), the high couple, the villain, the good governor), so the other faces in the production are certainly not him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you, this certainly could be Erich Witte, and unlike me, you clearly are an expert on opera in general and German opera specifically, so your say-so is worth a hundred times mine. But all I know is from looking at this image and comparing it to others, and, well, from that, this is a European male, probably around 40, plus or minus 10 years, with prominent eyebrows and a slightly receding hairline... so if you had told me, for example, that this was an early picture of Peter Fleischmann, before he decided to grow out his beard, I would believe that too! --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fleischmann was on the Main page today, sadly not even for a full day. The pic adds so much life! Also today: 3 DYK, including that the author dedicated a summer story to a license plate number ;) - Five rows of images added, sunflowers and butterflies continued, four rows of 15 August alone, - a rich Monteverdi day, - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Pageant official social media account considered reliable source or not?
Hi Gruban, i want to discuss with you regarding the source for pageant article on Wikipedia. I found out that today Miss Supranational has released the official results of Miss Supranational Special Awards, and they publish it on their social media account (not on their website). Here is on their Instagram official account. It clearly state that on Miss Supranational 2021, Miss Bahamas won the Miss Congeniality awards instead of Jihane Almira Chedid from Indonesia (as claimed by Lukewon using several unreliable source from Indonesian news website).

But, i also found on WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, especially on "Not Reliable Source", it mentions that one of the "questionable sources" is social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, and Facebook. (on last list). I want to ask is the social media account from official pageant organizer is also considered not reliable? If so, can you help me find the reliable source regarding Miss Bahamas as Miss Congeniality as states on its official results to put on Wikipedia because i can't find the report on any mainstream media (i search on Google Search).

If it considered reliable, could you add these on the list of reliable source and change the misinformation on Miss Supranational 2021? As the editor and pageant article contributor on Indonesian Wikipedia, i already citing this source to prevent any misinformation, especially from Lukewon which has cause numerous debate with other pageant article contributors.

That's it from now. Thank you, cheers - Dimma21 (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some random person's Instagram is only as reliable as that person's say-so. If that person is definitely known to be a representative of Miss Supranational, then their Instagram is fairly reliable. However, that is not quite as reliable as one might like - beauty pageant organizers have been known to make mistakes, especially for rather minor bits of information like Miss Congeniality. So if there are other reliable sources that say that someone else won, I'd put both names, with explanation (Miss Supranational org says X, Indonesian newspapers A and B say Y), until the dust settles, and we have a definite preponderance of sources saying one thing or the other. The contest was rather recent, right? I admit I haven't been following very closely. (Yes, I know I wrote the article for it originally! Beauty contests aren't really my thing, despite that!) If the Indonesian sources aren't that reliable (mainstream newspapers, or government pages, for example), but basically fan websites, then just go with the Supranational org statement. Actually, there is another solution - find the video of the live contest, and just watch it to find what the announcer says there. I'm pretty sure it's on YouTube somewhere, right? --GRuban (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's September corner
Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gerda, you are the sweetest person on the Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Love to hear that, of course ;) - DYK that I run the cabal of the outcast, and we have a rich Main page today: first TFA by promising author, pictured DYK by my friend LouisAlain who is discouraged by an AN discussion, and one of the Recent deaths. Enjoy! I love the image of a mature woman without make-up, - a nice change to our normal beauties. (I had tried before for her biography, but it took theleekycauldron to make it happen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * today: the day of bold red and black, for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision, - thanks again for the pic!! - Dante: just heard Inferno, imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * today: moar music, Beethoven, in different red and black (my pics, but not taken for DYK) and my brother was in the orchestra, 10 July! - Could you perhaps make a crop for DYK of Nicolas Mahler, for more face? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Done, also brightened. Two options:

--GRuban (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lovely, thank you, much more expressive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Today: a woman in red (back to the beginning of the thread), two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Help?
Okay magic man, I know I have been silent for a while, but I've been really, really busy working my way through nationality laws to write about women's nationality. To reward myself for finishing the Americas, Oceania and half of Africa, I am working on a woman. As you know, I prefer real ones, not some pretend person with no real life. ;) At any rate, I think I can use her book cover page 95, but for the life of me, I cannot remember how you did the last book cover for me. Can you use your magic wand and help me? SusunW (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * https://pdfcandy.com/extract-images.html? That actually got me a slightly higher resolution version of File:Elena Arizmendi ca 1916.PNG which I see you uploaded way back in 2015 ... you may want to switch to it, your call.
 * Meanwhile ... Yes, someone is finally working on the legendary Wikipedia inequity between Simpsons characters and Mexican feminists! --GRuban (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You totally rock!!! So, without doing OR or stating that she was stateless, since I see you made some edits, is the paragraph about her nationality clear? I actually wrote to Gabriela Cano (why don't we have an en.WP article on her?) to ask her if she knew if Arizmendi legally repatriated, but I haven't gotten a response. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean in the article lead? Well, yes, sort of - it's inherently a confusing issue, so I think you made it as clear as it could be. But I'm not sure it needs to be in the lead, is her nationality really one of the most important things about her? Later you write she thought of herself as Mexican whatever, and I can see that even in 1927 she published a Spanish language book in New York. Back to that, though, I'd recommend giving its title in the article, to clarify that is this. Also on that note, "Vasconcelos had published two works, Ulises Criollo and La Tormenta, vilifying Arizmendi" - vilifying? Really? That's pretty harsh - it wasn't a nice breakup? I'd say as much in the place you write about the end of their relationship, otherwise you just write "mad love", which only implies that it was careless, not bitter, and makes "vilifying" come as a bit of a shock. Similarly, when you write "Though at one time Arizmendi had and taken refuge in a convent in Victoria, Texas, to hide from the public scandal of her relationship with Vasconcelos" - can you be a bit more specific about when she hid, and how the scandal came out? I have to say, though, glad to have you return to your style of article again. If it doesn't have a torrid scandalous affair at its core, it's not really a SusunW biography! --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew you would appreciate me writing about her complicated life. Vilified is pretty tame. He called her a snake and other stuff, like "a devourer of men, the femme fatale" and a "harpy". I can add some of his descriptors, the stuff from Krause was added by another editor, but I was really glad to have the source. I have no clue when she hid in the convent, have 2 articles mentioning it, but neither give a date. I also have no clue when their affair became public knowledge, but some sources indicate it lasted for five years, so probably around 1911. They were both prominent and public figures, so it would've been difficult to hide. As for her nationality, Wikipolicy says I cannot include her ethnicity (WP:ETHNICITY) in the lede, but have to include her nationality for context. As far as I can tell, she was stateless, and calling her German or American would just flat out be wrong. So...what'm I supposed to do? SusunW (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And...it could also have been that Krause who thought it was a description of a mad love had read only the later version, because apparently Vasconcelos later revised them. "Esa historia —o más bien el principio de esa vida— apenas se conocía relatada en las primeras ediciones (las de los años treinta), del Ulises criollo y de La tormenta; una versión fue luego expurgada por el autor de ediciones posteriores (las publicadas por la editorial Jus veinte años después)" (Rodriguez, p 171) SusunW (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added some trash talk to the last paragraph in Nursing and noted in the last paragraph of Activism that he later changed his description of her. Better? SusunW (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lordy! Yes, much better. Who said encyclopedias had to be boring? And here I thought if you have a long romantic affair with someone you have to kind of like them, at least a little; I'm so naïve. But it's always the woman's fault. When a man cheats on his wife it's either because he was helpless before the mistress's wicked wiles, or his wife was frigid. I think I like Newt Gingrich's excuse best: he had his affair because he was working too hard, so he essentially did it for his country. --GRuban (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is that eyeroll emoji? o.0 But, yes, usually her fault. And I am of the same opinion as you, how could you not like the person you were in a relationship with. I'm also thankful for the relationships that made me able to appreciate this one, so can't imagine how vilifying them would not say something about me too. It takes all kinds to make a world. LOL SusunW (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I trust your judgment. If you think we should switch to the higher resolution image, I'm quite happy to do that but have no clue how to "upgrade" the image. SusunW (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal, the difference in resolution is minor. I admit, I'm slightly (only slightly) worried about that image's copyright status. In Cano's paper, does it say when and where that image was published? --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. SusunW (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

2.0
Okay, you and Ian have persuaded me that I am having fun and should do another woman. As you know, I don't usually (almost never) write about living people, but our article on Unity Dow is atrocious, (how can that be for someone so prominent and living?) At any rate, I am working on her for the Women in Green editathon. I know diddly squat about photographs published after 1977, or for people who are alive, or for Botswana. Can you look at those in the article and tell me if they are okay? If you have other things to do, no worries. SusunW (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The two pictures are fine, in fact there seem to be a few more at https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=unity%20dow&license=4%2C5%2C9%2C10 if you're interested. --GRuban (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would love more! I like the 2nd one (seated with her hands crossed), the third one (talking and facing right (looks like it might be a crop from one lower down, but I think she looks powerful in it), the purple scarf one, and the last one. SusunW (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hopefully these are those? --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, can you peruse Attorney General of Botswana v. Unity Dow and see if it is as clear as murky water? I wrote it at 2 a.m. and have revisited it, but I know what I am trying to say having worked on these nationality statutes for nearly a year, so it may be muddy to others. SusunW (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I threw in a few commas. More substantively:
 * I'd mention and link Unity Dow in the lead, possibly something like: "It also made the reputation of the plaintiff, Unity Dow, who would later become a judge and a government minister." (Assuming it did, of course.)
 * ✅ 16:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Unity Dow, a Motswana lawyer and the plaintiff, filed suit the High Court": "suit in the", I think; more important, I think "and the plaintiff" is therefore redundant? That's what the person who files suit is called, no? I mean, I guess, technically she could have been filing suit on behalf of a client, but I think that the plaintiff filing suit is the common usage, even when their lawyer technically files the papers.
 * Yes, I wanted to put in that she was the plaintiff so it was obvious that she wasn't counsel. I've changed the wording to "a Motswana lawyer and the plaintiff filing suit". Better? SusunW (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it "Court of Appeal" as in the lead or "Court of Appeals" as in the second Appeals paragraph?
 * Rechecked Quansah and he says with no "s". ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * " it could not be infringed except in the case that they impact " - seems like a pronoun conflict; rephrase?
 * Changed it to read "fundamental rights could not be infringed". Better? SusunW (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "The majority of the justices"; "The majority of justices" - but later: "The full bench of the Court of Appeal in a 3 to 2 majority" Was it always the same majority? Or different majorities in each case? Could be worth mentioning; in US Supreme Court cases it often is mentioned.
 * Okay well that took me a while, but ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The References section needs unification. I see in many places you have the [12]:345 source:page-number style, and yet many are divided by pages. Others seem completely identical, for example 3 and 7 (Coldham) or 13 and 14 (Quansah).
 * I redid the entire reference section to the way I usually do it. Much easier to edit the text without having to read around the citations, IMO. SusunW (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the lead of Unity Dow, I'd recommend rephrasing to lead with her nationality and link it. "is a Motswana human rights activist, and former judge and Minister of..." Per WP:IAR the Motswana demonym is not as obvious or widely known as some. Or maybe even give a footnote: "Citizen of Botswana, singular: Motswana; plural: Batswana", since it does not follow a standard English conjugation.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also there, "She came from a rural background that tended toward traditional values." seems out of place; possibly if the lead were expanded. But I guess you are doing serious work there, so I won't dig there much.
 * That part totally disappeared once I rewrote the lede. SusunW (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, nice! As always, of course. I can only hope to write biographies as nice as yours. --GRuban (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You totally rock! I'll circle back to it. Probably will just do the refs the way I usually do. Easier to read for me, otherwise the text is all bound up in refs, but I didn't want to put all the case discussion in her bio and then I realized the case article was crap too, (it was named as the appeal, but the only link in it and discussion was of the original case *sigh*), so I stayed up half the night trying to throw the case article together and then had Montanabw fix the title, because I wasn't sure legally how it should be styled. Good insights you've given and I appreciate it!
 * On her article, still working my way through all the completely uncited tidbits people have stuck in over time (who does that? - grrrrrrrrr) I kinda write in reverse, I do all the research and writing and then summarize the lede, so I haven't even actually looked at it other than to see the mention of the LGBT rights group and spend 1/2 of yesterday digging up sources for documenting that (haven't written it yet). I also haven't even begun the section on her literary works, but I have several academic reviews of them. (She reminds me of my friend Lisa Shoman in Belize, who worked on a major Maya land rights case, the sodomy case, was a lawyer, politician, judge, etc.) I am loving writing this, but want to make sure that I have good sources for everything. I'll probably ping you again when I finish it and add more photos, as I want to make sure it is GA ready. Truly appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good lord, I am exhausted, but I documented all of that uncited stuff with one exception. I can find nothing that confirms she is married to Karl J. Stahl, so I took it out. Also cannot figure out the name of the essay that was published in Schicksal Afrika, frustrating. But...before I nominate it for GA, can you look it over? I've asked Ian too, and need his help to "Britishize" (or is that Brisishise?) it. I am also wondering if we need to crop the lede image? I like it so much better than the one that was there, but I think perhaps there is too much background? I'll circle back to the case article tomorrow. For now, I need to take a break. SusunW (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing, this popped up during one of my searches. It says "promo" but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to tell what the licensing is. I'd love that wigged judge image at 0:17. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By default, the licensing is not free, as on that video, unfortunately. Under 1% of YouTube videos have Creative Commons licenses (and some of those are dodgy). If it is so licensed, it'll say "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" usually under the "SHOW MORE" link, if it doesn't, it is not so licensed. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uCbddg2bOg has one of those licenses under SHOW MORE. --GRuban (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG that's funny, someone with my same first name. Had no clue there was anyone else in the world who spells it as I do. I suspected as much, but it is a fabulous photo and I am sad we can't have it. :′( Ian has gone over it and I am on my way to address your issues with the legal case. SusunW (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's October corner
Thank you for the Carlisle Floyd image! - I uploaded new pics (click on songs), including "our" concert (after exactly two years without) and a cow sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: #1700, and I uploaded more images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

File:JohnFoulds.jpg - what do you think? Could it be out of copyright? ... taken to the commons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh... honestly, it probably is out of copyright, but we don't have very strong evidence for it. He was born in 1880, so in 1926, the key date, he's be 46. He looks younger than 46 in that photo, I think... but just one person's uneducated opinion is not proof. Also, the photo would have to have been published by 1926, not just taken. We'd need to find something that shows when that photo was published, and I don't immediately see it from a brief search, though that photo is in at least a dozen sources on the Web. --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any other of him? ... but you probably looked. Or could we get a page from the Cello Sonata, published in 1927? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked a bit, then looked again, and haven't found an image that is definitely free. There is this exhibit focusing on his wife (arguably an even more interesting person!), and I emailed that museum whether they know when that photographer died, let's see whether they respond. But the fair use photo is in the article now and reasonable until then. --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Today: memories in friendship, and thank you again for the better image quality! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

My last one of the month
Because I really must get back to the nationality article, but these are definitely more fun. I'm working on Miriam Soljak and I found this. There are lots of photos, but only one of them appears to have been published, (see p 41). I am guessing that it was either published in Macdonald, Penfold & Williams 1991 or Page 1998, but it is clearly a passport photo, which Te Ara says is not freely licensed. Thus, it seems logical that whatever image is used it will have to be "fair use". There is another one on page 14 of the first source. I am not sure which should be used, but I am positive that the one on 14 was taken around 1910 because of the style of dress. It may well be on their honeymoon trip in 1908 to Croatia. Your thoughts of which is a better lead image?

Next question, I'd really like to use 2 documents from that first source, but I am unsure as well. Seems like they would be government communications and not eligible for copyright, but admittedly I have no clue. The ones I want are on pages 42 and 43 of the first source. On 42 her alien registration from 1919 that is clearly marked "under protest" and on 43 a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs that says, oops our bad "you are deemed never to have lost your British nationality". Are they usable? How does one mark them up for copyright, if so? As always, I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so confident in the Te Ara notice; I think it's boilerplate, and not a conscientious examination of the license. See, the photo was clearly published in 1936 (it's stamped!), which means it was 50 years old in 1986, so if it's anonymous it meets both New Zealand https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-New_Zealand and US https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-1996 public domain qualifications as an anonymous work. I'm willing to bet it's an anonymous work, "whoever was working in the photo studio down the block from the passport agency". Te Ara doesn't give the photographer, nor does the book printing it.
 * But I see you've got the emails of a number of Soljaks right there on page 6, they certainly look like they're the heirs, and they're clearly interested in their family history. First, they might be able to release the image on page 14 and may have better ones. Something like: "Hello, I'm Susun W..., a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. I'm writing an article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Soljak and I saw your emails at https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/api/collection/localhistory/id/5310/download Would you be the owners (inheritors) of the copyright to these images and documents, and would you be able to release them under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/? If so, if you could be so kind as to write saying as much to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, saying 'We are the heirs of Miriam Soljak and own the copyright to the image at ... page 14, and are releasing it under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/' (CC me), I'll be able to use it in the article. Here are some other articles I've written for Wikipedia: ..." --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try that. Fingers crossed, but expect me to message you for help. SusunW (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I sent the e-mail and "bcc"ed you. Hopefully they will respond. Do they need to release the documents too or can those be used? SusunW (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good! As above, I think we can use the passport photo on p41 as public domain anyway (and I think the one in Te Ara is higher resolution), it's the one on p14 that is probably a private image not "published", so they would likely need to release. Or they could explain it was taken by someone who died before 1971, that also would work. The documents are different: CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, OF ALIEN is clearly 1919, and likely published, so should be public domain. "Declaration by a British Woman who has married an alien" is likely OK under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text, since it's just typing. If it were a work of art, then it would be by Soljak herself and she died after 1971, so it would still be copyrighted (for one more year!) so we'd need the heirs to release it, but I don't think it is. The letter from DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, is 1946 - that's a Work by the Crown, so having the heirs release it isn't relevant. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-New_Zealand says it would be out of copyright if it were 1944 or earlier, and it isn't. But it also seems mostly PD-text. It's got a bit of design at the top. It's certainly debatable. If it's important, I would risk it, and just cut the design off the top. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for analyzing this. The one on page 14 was published in 1993, but obviously that doesn't help. Mail bounced back from soljax, but hopefully the other one went through. We'll see. I am confused, why wouldn't the alien registration be a work by the crown? But even if it's not the link I just gave you says the police constable wrote the paper. She just signed it. He was Arthur Skinner and died on 20 June 1940. (I think it a remarkable document. Paul was born on 23 May 1919 and they forced her to register just 10 days after having given birth.) I haven't written past 1938 yet, still working on it, but I found the 1946 document astounding, as if all the trouble she went through was deemed never to have occurred. I'm not sure how one marks PD-text, but I personally think it is important. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

First one (or three...)

I'm guessing we're ... 90% safe here with PD-text claims. I am going to upload the whole under-secretary letter, and claim the design is de minimis or something; at worst, we can cut it off if someone really makes a fuss. Can you read the under-secretary's signature there? I couldn't. I sharpened them a bit, which may or may not have been a good idea - that makes the text stand out more, but it also makes the smudges and creases stand out more. If you want one or all slightly fuzzier and grayer, please say. We should probably make a Miriam Soljak commons category for all of these, I'll get around to it eventually if you don't. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am truly laughing. Me, make a category? I suppose I could try to find someone who could tell me how to do it. Thank you so much! I love them! Should I put the documentation about Skinner in the permissions section? The under-secretary dude was Joseph William Allan Heenan. Likewise, do I need to add his info to permissions on commons? SusunW (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Er - right. I added notes about both Heenan and Skinner to the respective items, and created https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Miriam_Soljak (To prove I'm not an expert at this bit either, the Wikidata Infobox is still not quite linked, though I could have sworn I followed the instructions. Hopefully it just takes a bit of time.) --GRuban (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unrelated notes: "When Soljak gave birth to her fourth child in 1912, she left teaching and the family moved to and on a bridge-building project near Kawakawa. When the birth of her fourth child in 1912 ended Miriam's teaching career, the couple moved to Tauranga," - this seems both conflicting, did they move to Kawakawa or Tauranga? They don't seem to be that close to each other. Or was one of these actually a fifth child? While we're at it, any more details about "in 1905 had a daughter in Auckland"? Anything about the father? I hope it doesn't seem like I always focus on the prurient details, but the person one has a child with is also often considered rather important to their bio. If you could list the children, it might also be a good thing - they're independently notable, but are from 100 years ago, so odds are quite good no longer living. --GRuban (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. I obviously was editing what was already in the file and failed to take out the duplication. They moved to Tauranga. It's fixed. You know me so well :). Daughter #1 was Dorothea G. Bremner, she wrote about her grandmother, Annie Cunningham. She was born 29 August 1905 in Helensville, Auckland, New Zealand; died 6 October 1985. Sources seem to give her as Soljak's daughter, but she wasn't biologically as far as I can tell. The list of kids Peter naturalized (p. 21 family archive) doesn't include her, i.e. she was already British. The only way she could have been British at that time was if her father was British and married to her mom, or she was illegitimate and derived nationality from her mom. So I searched FamilySource and come up blank. When I search ancestry for Dorothea/Dorothy Soljak I get nada. Using just the surname Soljak with mom Miriam Cummings, also nada, but just Cummings, with mom Miriam Cummings produces: Dorothy Grace Cummings, born Jul-Aug-Sep 1905, registered Auckland, New Zealand, folio number: 2874. Can't see more than that. Family photo says, oldest daughter was Grace. (p. 17 family archive). Can't find an obit for Dorothy/Dorothea. Miriam's grand-daughter, Katie said Miriam and Peter met up north (north of where?) and I get the sense they married because she was pregnant. Note that per the naturalization paper Philip was born 2 July 1908 and they had married on 10 June 1908 (p. 15 family archive) I am positive this all equals the right id, and am pretty confident Grace wasn't Soljak's child, but do I have a source, no, so I think all I could do it put in her name. SusunW (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I put in her name and did a note on the kids that were included in the naturalization. I don't think I can do much more than that, unless something else surfaces. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I sent you both e-mails I got from Lynne. My identification of "Grace" is correct. She wasn't Peter's biological child. She gave me the info that Sean Fitzpatrick of the All Blacks was their grandson. The only thing I can find on it is but not sure if we could call that a RS? Ideas? SusunW (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also found this. Again RS is iffy per WP definitions, but seems unlikely they would lie about the results and that he would appear in a video if it was inflammatory. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your emails. You are, as always, an expert predictor/interpreter of subjects not-quite-documented lives! If I ever write about someone with skeletons in their closet, you will be my go-to! I'd use the latter source because it's text. I would also defend the usage of the source as RS; even though it is called a blog, it is a company organ, not self-published, and the company is definitely an expert in who is descended from whom! --GRuban (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to help you any time, as I often feel as if I am always asking you for help. Back before dirt was invented, when I was in university, I actually took courses on how to research. Lesson 1, never, ever, ever trust 100%, a secondary or tertiary source unless you can go back and verify the information with a primary source. If you must use a secondary source, make sure that there are multiple sources that give the same information, but always remember that they can be repeating the same fallacies because once something is in print, people tend to believe it, even if it is proven wrong. On almost every bio, I start with primary records and make sure that at least my starting point and understanding of the family unit is valid. I do a whole lot more due diligence than probably most writers on here, but I think our sourcing rules are backwards. I get why, but I sometimes think that when trying to prevent fringe theories, promotionalism, and write every guideline as if it impacts BLP subjects, we lose sight of the goals to make information more accessible (and accurate). I absolutely agree we should use reliable sources, but I am not remotely sure that our guidelines give people an idea how to find them and analyze them. SusunW (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the info to both Sean and his dad's articles, so that at least the link exists between the family members and may generate new information at some point. I think people fail to understand the importance of links, as they open pathways to entirely new possibilities for information to surface. SusunW (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Judith Todd
Working on nationality laws and ran across this. Even though she is Zimbabwean, it says "taken for the Evening Post newspaper of Wellington (New Zealand) by an unidentified staff photographer". Unfortunately Papers Past has only digitalized this paper through 1945, and it's dated 1959. What do you think, usable? SusunW (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh - this is one of the most persnickety parts of our rules, unfortunately, and I really hate it. It's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights, and it says that due to obeyig both other country and US law, the item needs to be not only public domain now, but, usually, as of Jan 1, 1996! So according to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-New_Zealand, the image would be public domain in New Zealand, since it was taken more than 50 years ago, it didn't even need to be published. However, it wasn't 50 years old in 1996, so in a weird twist, even though it was never published in the United States, it's still not PD in the United States! Even though it's hard to believe that someone would claim copyright in the US, and yet not in NZ, it is theoretically possible. You'll notice I linked to PD-1996 for the above image there, this is why. Sorry. There are plenty of beautiful 1960s-70s photos of Judith Todd, but I think due to this issue we'd need to find one taken by a US newspaper, and see if that was published without a copyright notice, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no_notice. --GRuban (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I found this which according to the masthead and publishing data is not marked. Going back to see when the image was first published, it looks like on the 16th. The only publishing of it I find on that date is from the Lubbock Avalanche. No copyright noted on the masthead, and publishing data do not appear to be copyrighted. (I found two confirmations of it being published on the 17th, but both have copyright notices.) It was distributed by the Women's News Service, but I find no entry for 1965, for either the WNS or Lubbock Avalanche. (The Morning Call′s photo is a better image, which is why I researched both.)
 * Sorry, missed Wikipedia for a few days. Thorough research! Let's go with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no_notice. Want me to upload it? --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then there is this with masthead, publishing data which I cannot find any other use of and don't appear to have notices. But, Newsday of Long Island does appear in the 1965 book, and lists v. 25 no. 63 and no. 101-vol. 26 no. 100. Since mine is vol. 26, no. 68, it appears to be covered, but I can't figure out the number to see if it was renewed? It looks to me like B175562 is for vol 25 no 63 and there is no number for vol. 26?
 * That Newsday masthead had the C in a circle, so that's a notice, and you can even see it registered. Since it was 1965, it essentially got auto-renewed, see Copyright renewal in the United States, copyrights lapsed without renewal from 1964 or earlier only. So, no, we can't use that. --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The last one I find is this. The masthead shows it's copyrighted, but  publishing data shows no mark, and I noted it was taken by Evelyn Straus, who appears to be notable.,,, and this which says she was 26 in 1942, i.e. born 1916 +/- and was from Nassau, NY. Family search shows 23 in 1940,  which led me to born 22 June 1916/died 10 March 1992, which in turn led me to her obit. Daily News (News Syndicate Co, Inc.) shows v 46 n 163 – v 47 no 142 and mine is v 47 n 103. Again, I see no registration number, so how do I confirm whether it was renewed? Nada for Evelyn Straus. Does any of this get me to a usable photo of Todd? What about those 1940s journals for a photo of Straus? SusunW (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, if the masthead bears a copyright mark, and it's a 1965 issue, it essentially got auto-renewed and we can't use it. Looks like your thorough research got one reasonable candidate, though. The 1940s journals would need to have been copyrighted and renewed, so we could/should search for those copyrights and renewals - are you going to write an article about Evelyn Straus? --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would upload  the one for Todd, that would be great. I posted Straus on WiR hoping someone would write it, but, if someone doesn't, I will do it when I need to take a break from the nationality law legalese again. So, yes, we need to research those photos. (I wish I had a magic wand and could just make all the legal ones done so that I had the background to write the one I am aiming to do on women's nationality. But, when I finally get to it, we will have photos!) Good to see you back. SusunW (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Uploaded, added to Judith Todd article. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gracias mi amigo. I'll circle back on Straus. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Evelyn Straus

 * Okay, on Straus, vol. 75 no 43, 24 October 1942 does not appear to be copyrighted? Photo on page 20. Vol 85 no 48 22 November 1952 does appear to be copyrighted as B388924, but I find no renewals from 1978-1981. Photo on page 58 at the bottom. Both of the 1st two are really dark *sigh*. Vol 95 no 21, 26 May 1962 was copyrighted B973505, but I find no renewals. Photo on page 60 is probably the best image of her I have found, but maybe the other two can be lightened somehow? SusunW (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Will get to, honest... --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. When you do you do. I'm working on Africa. SusunW (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You did thorough research! I can't fault it, and will be sure to refer others to you. Brightened and otherwise massaged as best I could. If you want grayer, I can do that. --GRuban (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. Truly appreciate your help and your magic wand. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's November corner
Thank you for more image work, such as Hans Clemens. Today 3 DYK, Brahms depicted + sadly Aga Mikolaj (listen!). May the roads that we travel make us meet again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

More recent pics added ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanksgiving music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Unity Dow
Ritchie333 (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Miriam Soljak
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Exotic and Unusual Fishes of North America
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your close
Thank you for your very detailed close of the Bias category RFC! May I ask two clarificatory questions?

Your close basically says this, right? For all the right-wing politicians and parties inside Category:Islamophobia_in_Europe - they should not be categorized that way unless there are enough RS that attest to their islamophobia (per your close We keep only those persons or organizations in the categories about whom there is no reasonable debate). Correct?

And about the activism clause: For Category:Racism: is that only for anti-racist activism? or also keep racist "activists" (e.g. neo-nazis) in the category?

Best --Mvbaron (talk) Mvbaron (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's even stronger than "there are enough RS", per WP:OPINIONCAT "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions." It's there is no reasonable controversy. (I would really prefer to write "there is no controversy", except for that darn Wikipedia troll I mention in the details. I am quite, quite sure someone like that would show up and say "I hereby challenge every statement" just for the fun of watching the world burn.) Reasonable in this case is not just "a preponderance of the reliable sources", it's "no even marginally reliable sources". As Herostratus says, would the politician themselves say "Yes, I am an Islamaphobe"? If not, then we can't categorize them this way.


 * If (again per WP:OPINIONCAT "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists).") they would say "Yes, I am an anti-Islamic activist", then we can put them in a category "Anti-Islamic activists" if there is one, but we can't squeeze them into Category:Islamophobia just because we don't have category "Anti-Islamic activists", that is our problem, not theirs. We can put definite Neo-Nazis into Category:Neo-Nazis, that is what is for, even though it is inside Category:Antisemitism. If it didn't exist, we couldn't put Neo-Nazis there.


 * The "subcategory A is a subcategory of category B, so all rules for B should also apply to A" problem isn't as clear cut as you may think - consider Martinique, which (several levels above) is part of Category:France so part of Category:Europe ... while Martinique is clearly not part of Europe, "a landmass variously recognised as part of Eurasia or a continent in its own right". This is just part of what DGG and others mean by categorization being a blunt tool without nuance. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, so my first question is answered, and we should remove all politicians and parties from the category. got it!
 * I didn't quite understand your answer to my second question, but I got an answer insofar as we should also remove most "activist" from the categories too.
 * And yeah, I get the subcat problem. Just that the old RFC explicitly included the "and subcats" clause. So I'm taking the previous closers word for that. Thanks again! -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Many activists will admit to being activists. Those we can keep. --GRuban (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm trying to answer all possible questions in the general, and that's clearly impossible, even in Mathematics, and definitely about people. There will always be issues to argue over, all I can try to do is to minimize them; I do hope that close at least reduces the arguments. Do you have any specific cases in mind? --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ah sorry no. You did a great job, and honestly, I'm just glad this RFC is finally done! I'm not sure if I wanna edit categories anymore in wikipedia haha :D I don't have anything I wanna do right now tbh, I just had these two follow-up questions from your close that's all.
 * After all, not much changed wrt bias categories now to be honest, maybe I have read too much into the "forbidden"/"banned" language of the old RFC... In the end our policies are what matter, and your clarification nudged the RFC more into the background to I believe, and the policies more into the foreground. That actually makes things much easier. Cheers -- Mvbaron (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a bit strange that User:Timrollpickering didn't cite WP:OPINIONCAT in his close, since the guideline was definitely around at the time, March 7, 2011: (if with a different short link, WP:OC#OPINION). Here it what it looked like way back at the very first revision, in 2007: "Categories by opinion ...holding an opinion is not a defining characteristic, and should not be categorized by. Categories such as "Republicans" should be reserved for people doing active work for the party, as oppose to merely voting for it." --GRuban (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo my thanks for the very detailed closure notes at User:GRuban/ANRFC. Can finally start working on closing some of the CFDs that were held up on account of the RFC!  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks. --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not your fault, but I'm pretty annoyed that this wasn't listed at WP:CENT, as it surely was a discussion "regarding policies, guidelines or other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed". What do you think? My opinion is it would have had a lot more attention. That might not have led to a clear consensus to overturn, but at least it would be more obviously a decision by the broader community rather than what I expect was mainly people who pay a lot of attention to categories. Doug Weller  talk 10:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. This was my first rfc and I asked a couple of people beforehand what the correct venue was… I also (I think) made it clear that I wasn’t experienced in drafting RFCs and I got some feedback that I formatted it wrong, didn’t use the bot etc. I wasn’t aware there is something like a central venue for RFCs regarding that or that this was the incorrect venue. :( Mvbaron (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * that's very understandable. Not all RFCs belong at CENT. But I wonder if there should be a policy about which do belong there, and any way that a script could then list them. Doug Weller  talk 12:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Trump link RFC closure
GRuban, thank you for closing the Trump link RFC closure. Could you please add into your closure elaboration on how you reached that conclusion, and how policies came into play? As exemplified by another recent RFC close on that page. When I read your close, I concluded that it seems to solely be two humorous references, if I haven't understood it wrongly.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, there were more voices for not linking than for linking. You want little blue acronym links? OK, some people cited WP:OVERLINK but more in the spirit than in the letter, given that it doesn't specifically say "don't put the same link twice in one sentence", but presumably that would be WP:BEANS. You said that this would be an exception since it would go to the specific page section, but at least one person wrote no less eloquently that gooing to just that section would make it out of context. But honestly, as multiple people in the discussion wrote, this was a painfully trivial issue (a strong candidate for WP:LAME!), and really not worth the argument. Do you really want me to put that? Trust me, when it's worth detailing an RfC closure, I detail - look at another RfC I closed just today, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography I wrote a page of rationale there - User:GRuban/ANRFC. In this case, as several people observed, this just wasn't worth the candle. --GRuban (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I see now your rationale that there were more voices for not linking than for linking. When you wrap it up in humor (I don't always just count opinions in an RfC), it simply wasn't obvious, to me, that this was the rationale. I would not begrudge you if you had written that the RFC was WP:LAME. I simply disagree with the approach you have taken - even if the issue is painfully trivial, this is still a serious discussion on both sides, and as such, deserves a serious closure (because of editors' efforts), even if there is no need for a one page rationale closure. I would request that you reword (I don't always just count opinions in an RfC) in a clearer way.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. --GRuban (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, GRuban.  starship .paint  (exalt) 05:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Karolína Huvarová
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)